|
Post by Jack Raines on Nov 27, 2014 2:50:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Zekey on Nov 27, 2014 18:27:12 GMT -5
CM Punk became my favourite wrestler in 2 hours.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on Nov 27, 2014 21:10:16 GMT -5
So recap: Hates Triple H Hates Ryback Wanted 500 days as champ Rock is not a draw Jealous of Cena, did "as many make a wishes as Cena" Wanted Chris Hero over Roman Reigns Wanted 10 Million instead of 7 Million Didn't want to lose to any "part timers (Rock, Brock, Taker)" wanted to be paid more than all of them. Blames WWE for almost killing him Hates Drug Tests Confirms he didn't want match with Triple H at WM30 You sure Punk is as "clean" as he claims because drugged up Shawn Michaels probably has less complaints. And for a guy who kept saying "I'm not about the money" he sure bitched about pay a lot. LOL @ Bryan should have that Mania Mainevent and still bitch about how it should've been his.
And I like Ryback even more now.
Also since when does Vince McMahon ever sell anything? Tears in his eyes? I have a hard time believing that one. Oh and how does a guy who practices Jiu jitsu not know what a staph infection looks like? Or even wrestlers who work on mats? One would think staph would be a pretty common thing. And I like how he wanted to leave, but than bitched about being let go on his wedding day...aaand? They the you what you wanted. Wedding gift.
|
|
|
Post by Hacksaw Jim Powers on Nov 27, 2014 21:27:02 GMT -5
Here's what I took from it - there are some holes in some of his arguments, but all in all, a stand-up dude.
|
|
|
Post by lucas upstate new york on Nov 27, 2014 21:40:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Corr on Nov 27, 2014 23:25:28 GMT -5
I divide his whining into three categories:
1. Creative.
Losing to HHH in 2011. Losing to Lesnar, Rock, Taker. Not getting to main event WM (even though contrary to what he says, most recent WMs HAVE had multiple main events). Etc.
This is a bunch of whining for which he deserves no sympathy. He wasn't part of the creative team or management. Thus he gets no say in creative. If he wanted say in creative direction, or wanted to be guaranteed the last match at WM, he should have had that written into his last contract he signed in 2011.
2. Ryback
His complaints here might be legitimate. Ryback did go from main eventer to midcarder teaming with Curtis Axel over a short period of time. I assume there is a reason for that.
3. Dr. Amman
Would want to hear his side of the story. Normally a doctor should never breach confidentiality and talk about a patient's health, but here he would be responding directly to slanderous comments made about him.
|
|
|
Post by RKing85 on Nov 27, 2014 23:39:12 GMT -5
going to listen to it tomorrow at work. Got the cliff notes version from Dave and Bryan's Observer podcast. Like Punk and he has some solid points, but he is nuts if he thinks he should have beaten Undertaker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 23:48:36 GMT -5
I don't think he said he should have beat the Undertaker. He said he hated being repeatedly booked with part-time guys (The Rock, Undertaker, Lesnar, etc.) who he had to put over because it would leave his character diminished when those part timers beat him and left.
It's the only cogent point the guy really made in the entire interview because everything else was just money related whining and contradictions.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on Nov 28, 2014 1:09:21 GMT -5
Being paired with major stars is some sort of bad thing? I bet every guy on that roster wished for the unfairness of being in the same ring as Taker at Mania and Brock and Rock. Like wins and losses matter, that's mark shit. He was over and working with mainstream stars only helped further his status.
This guy is clownshoes, he says he took a break? Jeez I'd love to walk off the job site and just sit on my couch. Call the company for my check and expect a raise and maybe a promotion. What fucking world does he live in?
Working hurt sucks, yeah lots of guys do it though. N
|
|
|
Post by wigsf3 on Nov 28, 2014 9:53:20 GMT -5
Hearing this makes me long for a Punk promo. Today's WWE has too much talking and no talent to do the talking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 11:42:28 GMT -5
I'm glad he put Triple H on blast for the NOC 2011 match, because that combined with the Kevin Nash involvement absolutely decimated whatever momentum Punk had built up over the summer.
Whining about losing to Taker, Lesnar and Rock is weak as hell, though. Outside of the most hardcore Punk marks, I don't think anyone saw him as "diminished" for losing to the three biggest stars of the entire company.
And it's disingenuous for him to talk losing to a 45 year old man, because if you want to talk believability, a 210lb BJJ hobbyist would literally get killed in a fight vs Lesnar rather than have a competitive match.
|
|
|
Post by TolerancEJ on Nov 28, 2014 12:31:09 GMT -5
I do not feel any part of this interview represents a false accounting of the facts. CM Punk's personality had always been straight-forward. That personality is required in the wrestling business. You have to push yourself because nobody else will do it for you. He and Taker in fact had the best match of WrestleMania and he should have received an equal payment to the main event participants. I'm sure WWE already began writing a propaganda-style response as they always seem to have a gift of presenting a story in their image.
It was obvious to me that CM Punk had been working hurt, but had no idea to the extent as disclosed in the interview. CM Punk wasn't complaining about laying down for Rock, Brock, etc. His point was they were consecutive major losses at PPVs. He kept asking Vince, "Fine, what is happening the next night", to which Vince had no response. And from Punk's accounting, Vince owes him 3 times.
My takeaway was that WWE loosely runs a racehorse until it collapses. And it brings the concept of a corporate doctor in question. A doctor that is employed by a company, and works solely for a company's best interest is no longer a real doctor. What "doctor" does not recognize a staph infection, which can be fatal? What "doctor" says, yes you probably need surgery but you're scheduled to wrestle tonight/next week?
I fear WWE will punish AJ for the interview.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Corr on Nov 28, 2014 15:55:32 GMT -5
I'm glad he put Triple H on blast for the NOC 2011 match, because that combined with the Kevin Nash involvement absolutely decimated whatever momentum Punk had built up over the summer. The argument that he shouldn't have lost that match because he was "hot" or whatever is weak as hell. HHH himself lost many matches when he was at his peak, including CLEAN losses (unlike the HHH/Punk match) at three consecutive WMs (20, 21, 22). Besides, it didn't hurt Punk at all because just about a month later he won the WWE Championship and held if for 400+ days, the longest reign in like 25 years. It's up to Vince, HHH, Stephanie, and the creative team to decide who wins or loses. If Punk wanted to dictate which matches he wins and loses he should have had that worked into his last contract he signed. He obviously didn't, so he gets no say. Thus anything he says about having to lose a match is whining. It's not his choice to make.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Corr on Nov 28, 2014 16:06:56 GMT -5
I do not feel any part of this interview represents a false accounting of the facts. We know that it wasn't all truthful. He said Brock got paid more WM 29 royalties that he did. But it's well-known that Brock gets paid a fixed amount, thus doesn't share in revenue. Besides, there's no way he could know what HHH, Taker, and Brock made off a particular pay day. That's not public information, and there's no reason those guys would tell Punk what they made. Especially HHH, if they really don't like each other. No. WWE has a formula by which they share a portion of the gate number. The guys who go on last get the greatest share. If your match isn't last, you don't get that much share. The formula shouldn't be changed for one show just because you and Punk think it should. "Best match" is subjective anyways. That's why they have an objective formula where the guys that go on last get the greatest share. Talent doesn't get a say in who wins and who loses matches. If he wanted the power to determine that, he should have had it written into his contract. It doesn't matter what Punk feels he "deserves". He doesn't deserve anything beyond what he is contractually obligated to. Punk is a homophobe and a bigot. Take anything he says with a grain of salt:
|
|
|
Post by groovyphoenix on Nov 28, 2014 16:44:53 GMT -5
I haven't listened to the interview yet, and soon as I can I will, the major points I believe is that he was obviously unhappy. I think he is valid in a way to say losing to "part timers" isn't so good, not because of WHO they are, but of what they mean. Having said that, people who watch for the part timers are folks who don't care what happens the next day. And the more "educated" fans know part timers are there to pull in the crowd, it is a semi disservice to the regulars as yes, they lose a "spot" to fill but let's face it, bringing in Undertaker once a year for Mania helps draw crowds, he's an attraction. Maybe not so much this year since he's lost, and that mystique and build up is gone now, but it's still very interesting to me. I have never cared really about wins/losses other then story wise. What I mean is that yes Brian got kicked a lot and then finally won the belt. That mattered because its the logical conclusion. Putitng Taker over? To me, that would be an honor to the wrestler involved. Rock? Not as much, he's no longer a regular and less of a draw these days in my eyes. I mean sure he's an actor but I don't get the "thrill" of him being there anymore. Usef to care now, well it's just "Meh he's there" nothing special in it for me.
So I get what he's saying, while I don't agree with it all it's his side and we haven't heard the other side either. I am sure we will hear comments from other podcasts and other commentators etc. It's innevitable that it will happen, and then we'll formulate the truth with what we see.
Until then, I'm reserving judgement.
|
|